The fallout after the al-Megrahi case continues to show that devolution – and Scottish devolution in particular – has the capacity to show the limited understanding that many have about the current constitutional state of the UK. Worse than that for many this boils over into resentment, anger and rage, which at points is directed at the Scottish Government and Parliament, and sometimes ‘Scotland’ as an entity.

James Macintyre’s short piece in today’s New Statesman, ‘The Folly of Devolution’, is a breathtaking example of incomprehension falling into anger and hyperbole. He states of the al-Megrahi release decided by the SNP administration:

This is precisely the sort of decision that should be taken – and be seen to be taken – at a national level by the British government, not by nationalists in one part of the UK

This is part of the typical British/Westminster gaze that the ‘little platoons’ and troublemakers are nationalists, while the big, grown-ups are serious and statesmanlike, rather than British nationalists. Macintyre’s next sentence is a gem:

But devolution has led to a grave failure of accountability.

This sentence in its assumptions does not understand the nature of the UK or Scotland’s place in it. The Scottish legal and judicial systems, indeed Scotland as a place of autonomy which has often escaped or put itself beyond Westminster’s reach, did not arrive with devolution. As long as the parliamentary union between Scotland and England has existed, Scotland has had such a position in the UK.

OurKingdom on Lockerbie and the devolution of justice: see also Tom Griffin on Justice devolved and Guy Aitchison on Tory reactions

Scotland’s Government arrived on the international stage with the announcement by SNP Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the one person convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and the death of 270 people over the Scots town of Lockerbie on that fateful day, December 21st 1988, was being released.

MacAskill took his responsibilities seriously and appropriately, realising the importance of his decision with the eyes of the world on him. In his demeanour, statement and subsequent interviews, MacAskill seemed to display a sense of acknowledging all this, choosing his words carefully, avoiding populist rhetoric or playing to the ‘Daily Mail’ brigade (more of which later) – in the way Westminster Home Secretaries and New Labour Home Secretaries in particular – have done.

He did not buckle under considerable international pressure. The US administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and seven US senators including John McCain and Ted Kennedy, had piled pressure on the Scottish Government.

MacAskill made his decision on ‘compassionate grounds’, releasing a man who has been convicted of a heinous, horrid crime, but who has always protested his innocence. His release may prevent any further investigation into what really happened with Pan Am flight 103 and an examination of the doubts about al-Megrahi’s conviction.

OurKingdom on Lockerbie and the devolution of justice: see also Gerry Hassan on Lockerbie, justice and the price of devolution and Guy Aitchison on Tory reactions

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The Spectator's Alex Massie argues that yesterday's decision on whether to free Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi would have been dealt with by a Scottish official even before devolution. The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg believes it would have been taken by a member of the UK Government.

The two views aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and either way, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny McAskill's role in releasing the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has shown that the power exercised by Scottish Ministers can have implications of not only UK-wide but international significance.

Splintered Sunrise suggests that the SNP might for once have been happy to defer to Westminster, but that won't have stopped some in the other devolved jurisdictions coveting similar powers.

Plaid Commons leader Elfyn Llwyd called on Tuesday for the Welsh Assembly to be given responsibility for justice. According to the Western Mail's Tomos Livingstone, some Welsh police chiefs would welcome the move.

It's in Northern Ireland that devolution of justice is highest on the agenda, but also most contentious. Nationalists want to see a justice ministry established as soon as possible, while unionists are more wary.

OurKingdom on Lockerbie and the devolution of justice: see also Gerry Hassan on Lockerbie, justice and the price of devolution and Tom Griffin on Justice devolved

The Spectator has a must must-read article by Fraser Nelson on the state of Tory-SNP relations in light of the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. Alongside some rather crude caricaturing of Alex Salmond and the SNP are some fascinating insights into team Cameron's attitude towards the nationalists from a Brit-Scot journalist who is well-placed to know. The piece ends with this astonishing conclusion:

What is unusual about the growing Tory-SNP axis is that each side thinks they are fooling the other. Mr Salmond argues that, by exploiting the Little Englander side to the Tory party, he can take Scotland nine tenths of the way to independence. The Tories who support fiscal autonomy see a rare chance of getting rid of the cost of Scotland and being thanked for it - by a First Minister who is deluded enough to think that he would win from such a deal.

Absent from this is talk about defending the Union. When asked, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne both say they strenuously support it - but if gossip in the bars of the Commons is any indicator, Tory support for the Union is draining. According to a recent survey of Tory candidates, 46 per cent say they would not be ‘uncomfortable about Scotland becoming independent'. It is all too clear that the SNP will use every tool at their disposal to undermine the Union. The question is whether a Conservative government will have the motivation or energy to fight back.